|
Indeed.
We're all developers here. If updates are giving anyone such grief, they owe it to themselves to at least learn about Microsoft's Windows Update Server (WSUS). I suspect most of us on CP have an MSDN subscription, and have access to Windows Server. WSUS is a free add-on, is available from Windows Server 2003 onward, and it's rather trivial to install and configure. And it leaves you in total control of all updates.
It's certainly overkill for the average consumer, but we're not the typical bunch - most of us have multiple machines, and even more VMs, all of which need to be kept up to date - so even more reason to leverage the tools that are at our disposal.
|
|
|
|
|
A recent update caused Windows machines that DID NOT HAVE THE UPDATE to fail when it came to connecting via Remote Desktop or for network sharing.
Big pain if one needed remote access and had skipped the updates.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Recently, I became older. Over the course of my life, this has been a disturbing trend. However, the alternative doesn't seem much more appealing. I'd be willing to "Benjamin Button" it for a few years, but that doesn't seem to be on the menu.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm simply getting older. "I'm not old", he says, quickly concealing his gray hair.
I've noticed many older people ranting. It seems like it might be fun? So, I thought I'd experiment with it (in this post). I originally wanted to post this to my blog, but then realized I don't have one.
So, I'm posting it here instead. I'm hoping that the villagers will keep their pitchforks and Tiki torches in the shed. At the moment, I can't afford to pay a bridge troll its fare to pass.
So, anyhow, here goes...ranting powers activate...
I've been thinking a lot about software methodologies lately. Mostly, because there is no beer left in the fridge.
They always start out well-intentioned. "We keep falling behind our delivery schedules. Let's do something about that." Yeah!
Initially, much like a Mogwai, they start out all "cute and fuzzy". Then, someone feeds them after dark. Suddenly, they're trying to eat your face off.
OK, I digress, that might be some other critter. Honestly, I don't know much about Gremlins. I just know they're bad!
I think a better name might be software ideology. After the good intentions are long forgotten, the dogmatic elements become dominant.
"You can't do it that way." Why? Because, the methodology says its wrong.
My favorite example is the Manifesto for Agile Software Development (http://agilemanifesto.org/).
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.
I continue to agree with absolutely every one of these goals. If anything, its almost an anti-methodology. I suspect, but cannot prove, the pain of those well-intentioned heroes.
However, it suffers the fate of most good intentions. It follows a life-cycle familiar to many of us.
Step 1: Save the World - Some people with good intentions, recognize a problem and try to fix it. "Let's write a few simple guidelines. That should help."
Step 2: Build a Better World - Inevitably, that damned imperfect "real" world refuses to cooperate. "It doesn't always work for us. Let's fuss with it. If we just add a few simple rules, it will be even better."
Step 3: Write a Book - People start to interpret or misinterpret those few simple rules. A couple more rules should add clarity. "These rules are a little unclear. Can someone maybe write a book on the topic?"
Step 4: Hire an Expert - Companies have difficulty consistently implementing the rules. A couple more rules are added to help. "We're having some trouble with those rules. Can we get one of the folks who wrote that book to help us with a lecture?"
Step 5: Get Certified - Companies recognize that people experience uneven success following the rules. A couple more rules are added to help. "Folks aren't consistently following the rules. Is there some certification they can get to make sure they understand?"
Step 6: Enforce The Rules - Companies recognize the results are still inconsistent. A couple more rules are added to help. "Folks are still inconsistently following the rules. Can we hire some management experts to help enforce them?"
Step 7: Build a Culture - Countless studies (with little peer review) conclude that this is THE WAY to develop software. "This is definitely the way to go, let's make it part of our corporate culture."
Step 8: Build a Religion - Evidence of a problem with the methodology seems to exist. "It didn't work for you? The methodology isn't wrong. You're just doing it wrong."
Step 9: Attend Seminars - – Fans of the methodology assemble. "Those dumb people still don't understand our methodology. Let's start a seminar so we can discuss it!"
Step 10: Recognize a Problem - The industry as a whole comes to realize the methodology is flawed, return to step 1. “Hey, this isn’t working. I heard about this new methodology. Let’s try it.”
I wish people would allow software methodologies to serve them instead of making it the other way around.
I wish people would recognize the wisdom in common clichés: all things in moderation, no solution fits all problems, etc.
If a methodology is working for a project, great! Use it. If its not, use a different methodology for a while.
Methodologies shouldn't be a suicide pact. Multiple methodologies can co-exist. Let's end the rule that new methodologies must kill off their predecessors. This isn't Thunderdome.
Ultimately, in the software industry, we're making sausages. It's sometimes an ugly business. However, if the product is of good quality and affordable, the process used to create it shouldn't matter too much.
Ranting wasn't as much fun as I hoped. I tried it. I don't think its the thing for me after all.
Ah well, there's beer in the fridge again...problem solved...ranting powers deactivate.
Cheers!
P.S. Apologies for originally posting this on Soap Box. After reading a few posts there, it seemed misplaced, so I moved it here. Long time author, but first new post on a forum, so hopefully I'm not too off base 
modified 19-May-18 19:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You are becoming wiser. That's what is is. Not old, but wise!
BTW, I do agree. I am wary of pattern lovers for the exact same reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Yah, but a spiral is sort of a pattern too...right?
|
|
|
|
|
 The most common in the universe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trouble with "methodologies" is that, sometimes, they fit the job at hand and the instigator/author gets all excited and writes a book about how well it all went and we should follow along and do the same thing, etc, ad infinitum blah, blah, blah.
The problem, of course, with this is that no 2 businesses are the same. No 2 groups of people are the same. And therein lies the rub. All processes, no matter how well orchestrated, are people driven. And people, for the most part, act like mindless cats and are impossible to herd in any meaningful way.
So, for me and me alone, the best approach has been to hire really smart people and let them get on with it. And they still all have personalities and characters and great ideas that tear down the "methodologies" and show them up for what they really are: a one size fits all problems that ends up being the problem.
Yeah, I like the notion of agile but I'm damned if I'll follow along slavishly. That is dumb.
Anyway, do what you want - people always do anyway.
ps I am also gaining age - it's been and is being a fun run.
Never let the bastards grind you down is the only pattern that really works for me.
Have a nice weekend, cats.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience the problem is mostly just programmers who can't write decent software.
I've heard programmers say "software architecture isn't going to work for us, that's only nice in theory."
So no UI, business and data layers, no abstractions, no nothing.
No matter your software ideology, that's going to end bad (they were lucky that the software didn't change all that much).
Then I've seen software with a gazillion useless layers, just as bad.
Or software that took a non-DI library and used it as DI (the result was a very awkward method to instantiate objects when you need them, and no DI of course).
A completely wrong implementation of an ORM and the programmers who made the mess cursing the ORM (the problem really wasn't the ORM)...
Or a "core" library that every application depended on, but which changed almost daily.
These are programmers of all ages, not just the old farts.
No matter how clear or vague the business requirements are or how well your business structure is or how good the tools are you use, such software never ends well.
Maybe we should just learn to write software properly first.
After that we can worry about tools and methodologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: the old farts.
Hey, are you talking about me again? 
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote that post with you in mind specifically 
Just kidding, I only talk about you when you're not around 
If you read between the lines I'm just saying "not only the old farts are bad programmers, it's the young people too."
Of course it takes a younger person to read between the lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: In my experience the problem is mostly just programmers who can't write decent software.
I have worked with some real jerks. One guy in particular found an old and odd definition of a csv file, different to Lotus and MSFT (and everyone else for that matter) and he insisted on using his version in his code. Result, it couldnt read a csv created by say excell.
And he did it just because he could argue he was 'right'.
Crazy eh? Yet his line leader and manager let him get away with it. They were scared of offending him.
I have worked with other plain incompetent engineers who dont know why a UI locks up when its thread is asked to do heavy processing. That team actually threw away an app I wrote just to write their own, and because they couldnt understand function pointers, and made a complete mess of it.
One of the main reasons is fear of the new, the unknown. It is surprising how many SW engineers once they know something, cling to it, desperately. How unadaptable they are to new ways of thinking, and how attached to their code they are, as if it is their flesh and blood.
All of this makes for a very bad engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Crazy eh? Yet his line leader and manager let him get away with it. They were scared of offending him.
I've worked with people like that.
The problem was that the really bad programmer pretty much build the system single handed and he was the only one who really knew what was going on.
He got mad and stressed when he saw something he didn't understand, like lambda's in any other setting than LINQ 
And in the Netherlands it's quite difficult and/or expensive to fire anyone, so that's not really an option as long as he delivers something.
Munchies_Matt wrote: It is surprising how many SW engineers once they know something, cling to it, desperately. How unadaptable they are to new ways of thinking, and how attached to their code they are, as if it is their flesh and blood.
They sound just like people
The scary part is that this type of behavior is pretty much the default human configuration.
Doctors, lawyers, politicians... They all share those same traits 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, As Jung called it, 'To have or to Be'. Very good book about human psychology. (At least I think it was Jung...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F
Nope, its Erich Fromm. Bloody good read actually, it discusses for example intelligence. Is it a set of known, possessed facts, or is it a process, an ability to learn new facts? Too often we see it as the former, and act that way, but really, it is the later. And the more act that way the better we are in our work.
|
|
|
|
|
Doctors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, mechanics, BOSSES, etc.....When I was young I had this notion that people were generally competant, say, 99% of the time. Now that I have seen what there is to see, my estimate is less than 50% are competant and almost none should be completely trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people would call that pessimism.
I call that experience and wisdom 
|
|
|
|
|
That is interesting dichotomy i our software world.
Some just run for shiny new frameworks, some dig trenches around their favourite tools.
Maybe there are situations where someone sticks to some tools but in other he looks for new.
Fun part is both taken to extreme make bad developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Mateusz Jakub wrote: Some just run for shiny new frameworks, some dig trenches around their favourite tools.
Very accurate observation.
|
|
|
|
|
The place I work at uses the same one size fits all thinking (granted it works well for one the original), never stops to think, hey looks like we're working on a different application and different requirements. All that matters is to use the same shoe everywhere (they're kind of proud of it too). The thing is it is team lead's decision to make everyone put on the same shoe everywhere. I would like to argue but I've gone to a phase where I just don't give a sh*t and I have started looking for a new job opportunity.
Munchies_Matt: he did it just because he could argue he was 'right'.
Same thing happens with the guy I work with, occasionally he'd come up with these great ideas and would never stop bragging, but most of the time he is just arguing for his shoe which doesn't fit very well, but wins the fight almost every time because the guy can argue. Sometimes I'd be able to convince him if I find a not so critical flaw. If however there's only a critical one he'd simply shake his head say "You don't understand it", and come up with a contradictory argument to say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. It truly is amazing how many people with no real aptitude for programming choose it as a career. Then again, without them, I'd have a lot fewer contracts cleaning up their messes. So...for me, not sure if bad programmers are a good thing or a bad thing
|
|
|
|
|
Your current contracts are about cleaning up a mess, not your favorite pastime I think.
Without those bad programmers your contracts would be about building cool new functionality in well-built systems that are ready for the next level.
Functionality that's not possible or too expensive in the current software because it's such a mess.
At least that's what I like to think
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another victim of the broken window fallacy
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I was unfamiliar with that one. I like the analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Fir point although I don;t think our collective gripes are about software, per se, rather the gift wrapping it all seems to come with now mostly forced upon people by gullible managers. Still, each to their own.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
